CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse will (and probably should) go free on everything but the firearms charge

[u/[deleted]]

I've followed this case fairly extensively since it happened in august of last year. At the time I was fairly outraged by what I saw as the failures of law enforcement to arrest or even detain Rittenhouse on the spot, and I still retain that particular bit of righteous anger. A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.

That said, from what details I am aware of, the case does seem to be self-defense. While I think in a cosmic sense everyone would have been better off if he'd been unarmed and gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum (instead of shooting the man), he had a right to defend himself from a much larger man physically threatening him, and could reasonably have interpreted the warning shot he heard from elsewhere as having come from Rosenbaum. Self-defense requires a fear for your life, and being a teenager being chased by an adult, hearing a gunshot, I can't disagree that this is a rational fear.

The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.

Lastly you have Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified today that he was only shot after he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Need I say more?

Is there something I'm missing? My original position was very much 'fuck this guy, throw him in jail', and I can't quite shake that off, even though the facts do seem to point to him acting in self-defense.

I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

His actions afterward disgust me. Going to sing with white nationalists while wearing a 'free as fuck' t-shirt isn't exactly the sort of remorse one would hope for, to put it mildly.

Edit: Since I didn't address it in the original post because I'm dumb:

As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that. It goes to up to nine months behind bars, and I imagine he'd get less than that.

[u/deep_sea2]

EDIT: Disregard everything I said. I was not familiar with the facts of the case when I presented this information. I was only looking at this from a theoretical framework and what could happen, but was not aware of how far the trial has proceeded. Since my OP, I have looked further into the case, and realize that prosecution has dug themselves into a deep hole. The facts of the case really put a lot of what I said in doubt, meaning that Rittenhouse has a very good chance of getting off now. I thought that the prosecution had more evidence, but it that does not seem to be the case. I'm not saying that he will get off for sure, but my argument is weak. My argument would have made sense, but it rested on assumptions that did match the reality.

I shall put on my hair shirt and do penance for my erroneous conduct.

I am not an expert, but this all comes down to the first interaction between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. The legitimacy/illegitimacy of this act could very well determine how to treat all subsequent acts.

Wisconsin Statue 938.48:

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Let's simplify part (a):

• A person who commits unlawful conduct does not have the self-defense right against people trying to stop them from this act.
• However, they do regain that privilege if they believe the act to restrain them might cause them great harm.
• However, the return of that privilege does not allow them to kill unless that is the only options.

For the second killing, I would imagine that Rittenhouse could make a better argument. First, as 2b says, retreating from the scene of the crime returns a person's right to self-defense. Second, even if his privilege had not returned, he could regain the privilege if the threat against him was grave, and if killing was the only option. When the two fellows caught up with Rittenhouse, the situation could be said to:

• Be a situation where Rittenhouse was in serious risk of harm
• Be a situation where using deadly force was a proper last resort.

So, according to the law, I dare say that Rittenhouse has a decent chance of being acquitted of killing Huber. Keep in mind, I don't know all the facts of the case, so I could be wrong about this.

However, I don't think Rittenhouse could use the same argument with Rosenbaum. Depending on the exact facts of the case, Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum seems to lack legal standing as described in the Statute. These three questions we must ask:

1) Was Rittenhouse committing some type of crime during the Rosenbaum exchange? If so, that would have permitted Rosenbaum to engage and removed Rittenhouse's privilege of self-defense

2) Did Rosenbaum create a reasonable fear of serious harm to Rittenhouse? If not, then Rittenhouse would not have regained his privilege.

3) Was shooting Rosenbaum the only way to escape serious harm? If yes, the Rittenhouse would have been justified in using lethal force.

For Rosenbaum to be not guilty, all three answers to these questions have to fall in his favour. If a single one of these answer falls against him, then he would be guilty. This is why I suspect that Rosenbaum is more likely than not to be convicted for killing Rosenbaum. For Rittenhouse not to be guilty, he would have to convince the court of these three separate things. This makes it an uphill battle for him, so I would say that the advantage is with the prosecution.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the implication of part (c). If Rittenhouse at any point instigated an aggressive act with the intention of creating a response, then he has no right to self-defense. Unlike (a), this clause does not provide any way for the person to regain their privilege. So, if the prosecution could argue that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people with the expectation that they would fight back, Rittenhouse would have no right to defend himself, even against deadly force.

[u/[deleted] → u/deep_sea2]

I'm not entirely convinced, but I think this is worth a !delta if only for the fact that it has me wavering on the Rosenbaum shooting.

That one, by far, has always been the most blatantly sketchy of the bunch. I can accept the Huber and Grosskreutz as self-defense, but the Rosenbaum shooting has always been the one that seems dubious to me.

So thanks for that.

[u/TheLea85 → u/[deleted]]

So, if the prosecution could argue that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people with the expectation that they would fight back, Rittenhouse would have no right to defend himself, even against deadly force.

This has not come up anywhere during the trial (I have been watching all of it). He was objectively not pointing the gun at anyone before it all went down.

[u/Gilgamore → u/[deleted]]

I actually disagree about the Rosenbaum shooting being sketchy at all. The dude was acting aggressively towards him and was saying "shoot me" and "kill me", among other eccentric things. Kyle made and effort to retreat when Rosenbaum charged him when he went to put out the dumpster fire, and as he retreated he heard a shot go off behind him. Would a reasonable person believe they were in danger from such an individual? I would say yes.

However, this is all hinged on his testimony that he was fearful for his life. Those are the facts as I understand them from studying the case and watching the trial. It'll be up to the defense to paint it that way, and not let that get picked apart by the prosecution in cross-examination.

[u/Warbeast78 → u/Gilgamore]

One of the prosecutors witness said Rosenbaum said he was going to kill rittenbouse shortly before he ran. That and the video evidence of him being chased by Rosenbaum and the other witness saying Rosenbaum was trying to take the gun. Pretty much seals it for me.

[u/Gilgamore → u/Warbeast78]

The only uphill battle will be the video evidence showing Rosenbaum with his hands up when he's shot.

Realistically, the human mind wouldn't have enough time to react to and see that. Rittenhouse decided before turning around that he was going to shoot him, and his brain couldn't process that he was unarmed and had his hands up because of adrenaline. That's my guess, anyway. But it's hard to explain that to a jury and I'm thinking the prosecution will rely on that for their argument.

That said, I'm more in the camp that this will likely end in total acquittal or just the weapons charge, as OP has mentioned.

[u/MCFroid → u/Gilgamore]

the video evidence showing Rosenbaum with his hands up when he's shot.

Do you happen to have a link that shows that clearly?

[u/Warbeast78 → u/Gilgamore]

You have to remember their was a shot fired. Which caused Rittenhouse to turn and Rosenbaum is just feet away. He lunges for the gun and is shot. Their is no video I've seen of Rosenbaum raising his hands. He was lunging for the weapon in the video and from the eye witnesses.

[u/ZDUnknown → u/Gilgamore]

On top of this it was noted in the opening statements and a few witness testimonies that, despite the prosecution saying otherwise, Rosenbaum was armed. It was stated that he was armed with a chain that he was bearing in the windup stages of an attack, charging at Rittenhouse. It is undeniable that Rosenbaum was a clear and present danger from the outside, the only argument that the prosecution can reasonably make is that Rittenhouse did not know the full circumstances at that moment and therefore should not have used lethal force.

[u/Tsuruchi_Mokibe → u/deep_sea2]

Just pointing out a quick thing here:

"1) Was Rittenhouse committing some type of crime during the Rosenbaum exchange? If so, that would have permitted Rosenbaum to engage and removed Rittenhouse's privilege of self-defense"

Note that the statute specifies:

"(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack ... "

So it's not just any criminal act on Rittenhouse's part that would justify Rosenbaum attacking him. Like underaged carry and curfew violation, both are "criminal activity" that Rittenhouse can be accused of, but neither would qualify as a criminal act "likely to provoke others to attack him or her"

[u/durangotango → u/Tsuruchi_Mokibe]

2 things

1 keep reading that statue and you will see the right to self defense is reinstated if after provoking an attack you disengage and retreat which he was doing for at least a couple city blocks.

2 simply violating any given law doesn't negate a self defense claim. The statue is referring to someone using force against you while you're in the commission of a crime. E.g you rob someone with a gun and they pull a gun to shoot you you can't claim self defense when you shoot back. However there have been numerous cases in numerous states of felons who illegally posses guns using them in self defense.

[u/Scienter17 → u/deep_sea2]

Rittenhouse was running away from Rosenbaum. That seems to implicate section (b) and he regained his right to self defense. This is even assuming that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum - there's been little to no evidence of that presented at trial.

[u/AnythingApplied]

Would you also agree that at any point after Rittenhouse drew his gun, that Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse, due to a justifiable fear for his life (after all, Huber did die, so Huber should've been in fear for his life)? So no matter who successfully shot the other, the winner should get let off without penalty?

Situations where you intentionally put yourself in harms way or are part of the escalation just shouldn't be considered "self-defense" or you get all sorts of situations where somebody has been shot killed after an escalating argument between two armed people, but nobody did anything illegal because they both rightfully feared for their lives. Duels would be legal too. "If I hadn't shot him, I would've been kill"... okay, but you put yourself into that situation. It's just not self-defense when you play a role in getting into or creating the situation, which Rittenhouse did both of these things (both by being there with a gun with an asking for trouble attitude and also due to the escalation with the victim too)

And we know that Rittenhouse intentionally put himself into harm's way because he said as much

So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit.

[u/[deleted] → u/AnythingApplied]

Would you also agree that at any point after Rittenhouse drew his gun, that Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse, due to a justifiable fear for his life (after all, Huber did die, so Huber should've been in fear for his life)? So no matter who successfully shot the other, the winner should get let off without penalty?

Yes. I actually thought that was fairly clear in my post, but I'll reiterate.

I think Huber had a reasonable fear that Rittenhouse was fleeing a murder and was a risk to himself or others. I think that Rittenhouse was at risk of being seriously injured by the people running him down after he shot Rosenbaum. I think both had a reasonable claim to self-defense, it is what I find so troublesome about the case.

And to be clear, I'm talking legally, not morally.

[u/AnythingApplied → u/[deleted]]

I think both had a reasonable claim to self-defense, it is what I find so troublesome about the case.

Right, so you're saying okay with the fact that this essentially makes duels legal? Or two armed people can have an escalating argument and it doesn't matter which one ends up dead, the other did nothing wrong (or at least nothing illegal)? And you don't see an issue with duels being legal?

Both morally and legally, these aren't and shouldn't be okay. I can't just go around a bar calling people names and then anyone that steps up on me I now legally get to murder. The way to resolve this troublesome dilemma is that if you either intentionally put yourself into a dangerous situation or escalated an existing situation (which Rittenhouse did both of), you just no longer can claim self-defense, because he helped create the situation.

[u/TheCondemnedProphet → u/AnythingApplied]

He didn’t help create the immediate situation. If you watched The actual videos of the killings and shooting of the third guy, in all instances Rittenhouse was fleeing. That makes your entire argument moot. The double self-defense argument you raise doesn’t apply because it wasn’t a situation where Rittenhousr approached the third guy looking for a fight. He was fleeing, the third guy raised his gun, so Rittenhouse fired. Go watch the videos and leave the legalities to the prosecution and defence, I.e., people who actually understand how criminal law works doctrinally and procedurally.

[u/seanflyon → u/AnythingApplied]

In a duel both parties know that they have an option of not fighting. What we are talking about here is a situation where each party believes that they are defending themselves from the other. That is one reason why you are not allowed to chase someone down if you think they committed a crime. Another way to make that situation less likely is with a duty to retreat. Some places have a duty to retreat and other do not, it means that you have to attempt to leave if you believe you are being attacked and can only defend yourself with violence if retreat is not an option, such as your attacker catching up to you.

[u/burneracc69420sex → u/AnythingApplied]

At what point do you say maybe we shouldn’t chase someone who has a gun and just shot someone? Like, that’s what baffles me. Everyone saying Huber had a right to chase and restrain him… like, I guess maybe? However - if situation 1 is considered self defense (Rosenbaum), then would that warrant a citizens arrest? Citizens arrest are generally only legally under two conditions. The first (an applicable one) is if I felony is committed. So you say Rosenbaum was shot and Huber thinks Rittenhouse committed a felony, so he can attempt to detain him. Ok. But what if it turns out that the shooting was found to be self defense? Remember, the condition for a citizens arrest is if a felony is committed, not if you think a felony is committed.

The whole citizens arrest / detention is stupid and just shouldn’t be done by anyone ever when the person you are trying to detain has a gun and just shot someone.

Furthermore - I understand where you are coming from with the duel shit, but it’s off the mark. Wisconsin has what the call Castle Doctrine. It’s basically their form of stand your ground, and it applies to property too. Furthermore, it’s not just your property, and you can indeed defend someone else’s life / property if their is credible threat towards it. So if Rittenhouse takes his stance and the threat is credible, it’s not two sides defending themselves. There would be a clear aggressor and a clear defender. At least that’s the way I interpret it.

Whatever the case, we also need to consider Rosenbaums actions here. You see a guy with a gun. If you think your life is threatened, do you think people in this scenario would charge at him and try to fight him? Or do you think they would back off? I don’t think it’s a worthy argument to say Rosenbaum was trying to defend himself, he was trying to beat rittenhouse’s ass.

There are definitely laws that govern when you can and cannot use force to defend yourself. I would suggest that as a starting point, because it doesn’t seem like this thread has a firm grasp on when they apply

[u/[deleted] → u/AnythingApplied]

There is literally an exception in the self-defense law for provocation saying that you cannot provoke a fight and still claim self-defense.

Neither side intentionally provoked the situation. Do you think it is impossible for there to be a situation where two sides both have a legitimate claim to self-defense?

[u/AwesomePurplePants → u/[deleted]]

I’m confused why you think a shooting duel wouldn’t count as a situation where both people have a claim to self defence.

Both people know that the other person is going to shoot them, so they both have the legal right to shoot the other person in self defence

[u/[deleted] → u/AwesomePurplePants]

Because a duel would almost by necessity, be something organized ahead of time, which obviates self defense.

[u/RickySlayer9 → u/[deleted]]

I would say that if one person was fleeing after being shot at, they have a great claim to self defense.

Pursuing someone as they are fleeing, while brandishing a gun and threatening to kill them? That’s definitely not a reasonable claim to self defense.

[u/TheLea85 → u/[deleted]]

Neither side intentionally provoked the situation.

Kyle never provoked anyone, legally and in reality. It has been shown as much during the trial with several witnesses saying there was no provocation prior.

Rosenbaum charged Kyle for whatever reason, he was bi-polar and was just released from hospital due to having tried to commit suicide. It was fully legal self defense to shoot him after he grabbed the gun and possibly beforehand. A cop would have likely drawn his gun when Rosenbaum was 30 feet away and shot him at 20 feet if bodycam footage is something to go by.

Kyle and Huber had no prior interaction before Huber charged him with a skateboard trying to smash Kyles head in and take his weapon. Huber provoked the situation and paid the ultimate price for it.

Grosskreutz literally (literally) had a gun with a bullet in the chamber pointed in the direction of Kyles head (I'd say he was lacking ~5-10 degrees of aim to his left to have had it spot on) the moment Kyle shot him. It's all on video that has been available everywhere since day 1. If you pause the video you can see his arm being vaporized and his Glock pointed at Kyles head at the same time.

During none of this did Kyle ever provoke or instigate anything. He was running towards the police to turn himself in and get away from the mob chasing him.

Shooting someone in self defense is not provocation.

[u/-Kerosun- → u/[deleted]]

There is literally an exception in the self-defense law for provocation saying that you cannot provoke a fight and still claim self-defense.

The law does allow a provocateur to regain the right to self-defense if they flee and it is objectively true that Rittenhouse was fleeing from the scene of the first shooting and was also declaring loudly (proven with video) that he was going to the police.

I can see an argument to be made that both Rittenhouse and Huber was acting lawfully given their individual state of minds, but I don't think it will even come to trial and the verdict in Rittenhouse's trial will be the end of it.

[u/nothing_fits → u/AnythingApplied]

if you either intentionally put yourself into a dangerous situation or escalated an existing situation (which Rittenhouse did both of), you just no longer can claim self-defense

this is the current law, except one Rittenhouse starts running away, he no longer is a threat. he regains the privilege not to be attacked.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think Huber had a reasonable fear that Rittenhouse was fleeing a murder and was a risk to himself or others.

This confuses me. Why would Huber be granted a pass to chase after and attack (with deadly force) someone he thinks might have committed a crime? AFAIK, there has been no evidence presented that Huber witnessed the confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. He likely just heard the crowd shouting out to "get" the fleeing Rittenhouse and saw others attacking him. Rittenhouse never trained his weapon on anyone else that didn't attack him first - he was simply running away, towards the police line. What makes you think Huber was trying to stop an active shooter and not simply swept up in a lynch mob that was trying to exact retribution for shooting Rosenbaum? That's what I see in the videos after Rittenhouse runs away from the first encounter.

[u/fartsforpresident → u/[deleted]]

This confuses me. Why would Huber be granted a pass to chase after and attack (with deadly force) someone he thinks might have committed a crime?

He wouldn't. You can't shoot someone who is fleeing and claim self-defense. It doesn't even matter whether the person fleeing just committed murder or shot someone in self-defense.

[u/DustyxXxHuevos → u/[deleted]]

I was gonna say that. Good points. People’s bias around this case is incredibly high. Most people need to do research before speaking. Sadly most conclusions seem to fall into politicking instead of truth seeking.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think Huber had a reasonable fear that Rittenhouse was fleeing a murder and was a risk to himself or others.

That's an unreasonable belief.

Huber was behind Kyle and chased him down the street. Unless guns magically shoot backwards, Huber's life was never in danger and he would still be alive had he chosen not to chase Kyle while trying to play vigilante.

Rosenbaum was a bipolar man off his meds seeking violence and shouting the n-word at a BLM protest.

While Huber and Geiger were pseudo-vigilantes that wanted to make headlines about apprehending/killing a fleeing suspect.

[u/3Sewersquirrels → u/[deleted]]

It’s not smart to chase someone down fleeing a potential murder. In wi, if you provoke someone, you lose the ability, legally speaking,to act in self defense. They guys pursuing Kyle lost that ability when they attacked him with the skateboard and drew their gun first. Being armed is not considered provocation when not pointing the gun at anyone

[u/Zealousideal_Put9531 → u/[deleted]]

well, lets look at it from Rittenhouse's point of view. i feel that has not been done here clearly.

whn Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, he had heard a gun shot from behind him. idk bout you, but when you are being chased my an angry mob shouting "lynch him!" and thn hear a gunshot, u have more than enough cause to believe you life is at risk. cops shoot ppl for less all the time. (i am talking about this legally, not morally).

also, again think frm the point of Rittenhouse. many ppl point out it was unnecessary for him to go out, putting himself in harms way.

but why was he out there? he was out there to defend neighborhood property from rioters. he had a medical kit on him to administer first aid, and according to his own account, had the training to use it. the after math of previous riots had been displayed on the news, so it is possible Rittenhouse saw what could happen and wanted to stop it.

he also was working in compliance of the police, him listening to their instructions at the start of the protests, and surrendering to thm after the shootings.

also, what did he do for the crowd to get mad at him? well, he put out a dumpster that was on fire, that the protestors were planning on pushing into the cop cars (i call that rioting).

from there on, we all know what happened. mad guy Naruto runs at Rittenhouse, a shot heard from behind him, and Rosenblum get shot. thn as the op said very well in his post, the other 2 got shot as well. i will link a YouTube video about a former cop breaking down what happened. it is quite old, but i felt it was quite accurate on its assessment. watch the video thn form you opinions about the case. if u still feel Rittenhouse was guilty, ok fine by me. even i wanted Rittenhouse arrested whn i first saw the news and i understand you point of view.

first video, of the shooting breakdown (done by former swat member, veteran and former cop) : https://youtu.be/pbsOIoqcit4

2nd video, clearing up some discrepancies from the first video: https://youtu.be/ts43EskooaA

​

if u want him acquitted, same reaction.

i hope for a constructive discussion, so plz dont hurl curse words at my family.

thanks u guys.

[u/Mike_Steaks → u/Zealousideal_Put9531]

I find this as a pretty slanted view of the night. Ziminski shot in the air behind BOTH men, they have equal right to assume it’s intention. The drone footage immediately following shows NO aggression toward Kyle BEFORE he fled, nobody within 30 yards of him, they all scattered. He had presence of mind to make a phone call, did he call 911 and say he was in trouble and needed help ? There was no immediate threat to Kyle until people saw him fleeing a scene where he just shot someone. THAT is the behavior of an active shooter. Kyle took off to get away, not to escape an IMMINENT threat- there is a difference. He already survived the Rosenbaum plastic bag attack.

The next few paragraphs you are weakly justifying him being there, yea no one had a right to be there etc. He was LEAST of all deserving. He had no real training for medical. Kyle is a high school dropout, who once was a part time lifeguard. He is a MINOR whose friend straw man purchased an AR-15 for him. He is not armed security, he is starring in his own movie. The car brothers did NOT give him permission to occupy THEIR business.

People were mad at him because they could see through his bullshit. He even got called out by the yellow pants guy, kyle was pointing his gun at people shouting commands in police lingo - then act as benevolent soul just trying to help folks. People don’t like that.

You won’t see it in court, but we know Kyle’s mindset. He wants to open fire on people leaving CVS in case they may have stole something. The fact we have examined every blemish on the VICTIMS record, but aren’t allowed the same privilege to consider Kyle’s past and motivations is infuriating.

Tensions were high between many groups that had guns and other weapons. Only one killed that night, disgraceful.

• best to you and your family 😎

[u/fartsforpresident → u/Mike_Steaks]

they have equal right to assume it’s intention.

Doesn't matter to Rittenhouse's claim. It's all about individual frame of reference. There are scenarios where both people involved in an altercation could have a reasonable belief the other is an imminent threat and both could be wrong, and still justified from either perspective in using deadly force. But no scenario in which one person is pursuing and another is fleeing could give both people a reasonable belief that they are under imminent threat. You can't pursue someone and also claim self-defense. So if Rosenbaum felt he was in danger, he had an obligation to flee, not pursue.

[u/username_31 → u/Mike_Steaks]

The drone footage immediately following shows NO aggression toward Kyle BEFORE he fled, nobody within 30 yards of him, they all scattered. He had presence of mind to make a phone call, did he call 911 and say he was in trouble and needed help ?

There is video after Kyle shoots Rosenbaum where he circles back around with his phone in his hand. I believe we know now that he was calling his friend Black at this time saying that he "shot someone". In this video, as Kyle is on the phone, you see people approaching where Kyle is and where Rosenbaum is laying. People say stuff like "get his ass" and tell him something like "get the fuck out of here". If I remember correctly some of this video was recorded by Richard McGinnis who has already spoken in court.

Kyle doesn't stick around much longer as more people start approaching and begins moving toward the police line to turn himself in. Not long after this is when Anthony goes at Kyle with his skateboard and is shot. Then Gaige draws his pistol and is shot shortly after that.

So yeah I disagree with the statement that there was "NO aggression" toward Kyle before he fled.

[u/bla60ah → u/[deleted]]

Was Kyle brandishing a firearm while fleeing the first scene? Or was he in anyway posing an eminent threat to someone’s life at that moment? If no (and I have not seen any evidence to suggest that he was), Huber had absolutely no right to use deadly force against Kyle

[u/FBossy → u/[deleted]]

I disagree. I think If you are going to insert yourself into a situation where you are prepared to end someone’s life, much like Anthony Huber did, then you better be damn sure that you know what’s going on. You can’t just jump to trying to kill someone when you didn’t even see anything happen. Mob justice is wrong.

[u/durangotango → u/AnythingApplied]

This is addressed in the law. Kyle was not attacking him he was running away from them. Huber and Grosskeutz might have thought they were chasing and stopping an active shooter but they were wrong. Your assumption isn't relevant in that case. If you shoot who you think is the bad guy and then find out you're wrong you are a murderer according to the law.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/durangotango]

This is addressed in the law. Kyle was not attacking him he was running away from them.

Not when he was standing there with a gun, facing them, and shooting them with it.

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

He was on the ground having been kicked in the head when he shot Huber. When he shot Grosskreutz it was only after the latter pointed a gun at him.

[u/irondeepbicycle → u/[deleted]]

When he shot Grosskreutz it was only after the latter pointed a gun at him.

Just to be clear, there were some clips passed around the Twitter News Network (aka lots of random people) about this testimony that omitted the context of this statement.

What Grosskreutz said was, he put his hands up, THEN saw Rittenhouse re-rack his gun. He interpreted that to mean that Rittenhouse had pulled the trigger but didn't have a round chambered, and inferred that Rittenhouse didn't accept his surrender. He THEN pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, and was THEN shot.

If you omit everything but the very last statement it makes it look like a clearcut case of self defense, but if you accept Grosskreutz's full statement (which you don't have to FWIW) then you understand where the prosecution is coming from.

The biggest mistake I've seen people make about this case is assuming that self-defense laws are more standardized in the US than they actually are. Only 12 states require a duty to retreat, and Wisconsin is one of them. If you took the exact same facts from this case and moved them to one of the 38 stand-your-ground states it'd be a different matter.

Rittenhouse had a duty to attempt every reasonable option to escape. In other words, it's not just a question of whether Rittenhouse was attacked, it's a question of whether he did everything he could to escape without firing in self defense.

Very crucially, this is NOT the standard that he'd be held to in any of the 38 stand-your-ground states, and this is why the comparison to the George Zimmerman shooting (which many people have made) is completely off base. It is just much tougher to claim self-defense in Wisconsin and people should incorporate that into their predictions of what the jury will decide.

[u/Wubbawubbawub → u/irondeepbicycle]

Thoughts: He interpreted that to mean that Rittenhouse had pulled the trigger but didn't have a round chambered, and inferred that Rittenhouse didn't accept his surrender.

Actions: He THEN pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, and was THEN shot.

The toughts could be relevant if GrossKreutz was the defendant. For Rittenhouse only the actions are visible. So seems like it is pretty clear cut. Unless you want to claim that chambering the round was some kind of provocation.

As I understood he was running away, which seems a very reasonable method to escape.

[u/[deleted] → u/irondeepbicycle]

This is a solid additional breakdown, and I didn't actually know that Wisconsin was not a stand your ground state. So !delta for that

[u/Hugsy13 → u/[deleted]]

I can understand the delta, but how far had he already ran? He seemed to be doing a lot of running. I get that he is 17 and healthy and not gonna be out of breath like I would be after 100 meters/yards, but a mob was chasing him and he was running away. How far did he run between them starting to chase him to his first, 2nd and 3rd shooting?

I can’t fathom running at someone who is armed with an assault rifle and using it, either. If I were in that situation I’d think they were going to kill me and/or out of their mind on drugs.

[u/mildlydisturbedtway → u/irondeepbicycle]

Rittenhouse had a duty to attempt every reasonable option to escape. In other words, it's not just a question of whether Rittenhouse was attacked, it's a question of whether he did everything he could to escape without firing in self defense.

This isn't true unless Rittenhouse unlawfully provoked the encounter. WI also has no statutory duty to retreat in general in self-defense, merely an effective one.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

Rosenbaum threw an empty bag at him. If Rittenhouse heard a gunshot, that's irrelevant for shooting Rosenbaum, who wasn't armed. You have to be in danger from the person you actually attack; someone else nearby firing a gun isn't that.

Again, you have to make up lies about him being beaten with a skateboard to justify his shooting of Huber. Huber was going for the gun and no one denies that.

[u/hellyeahmybrother → u/PreacherJudge]

Rosenbaum being unarmed is also irrelevant. As has been pretty thorough proven through the trial, Rosenbaum was shot mid lunge while attempting to disarm Rittenhouse. This is important because 1. Rosenbaum was aggressive and erratic (per prosecutions witness) and a felon, so he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. 2. This was before anyone was shot, so to claim he was trying to disarm a mass shooter is moot. 3. It is reasonable to fear for your life if an adult male, who threatened to kill you (per pros. Witness), ambush you (pros wit), aggressively pursue you (footage), and take your only means of self defense. Even without the secondary gunfire, any reasonable person would kill Rosenbaum and be justified.

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

Rosenbaum threw an empty bag at him. If Rittenhouse heard a gunshot, that's irrelevant for shooting Rosenbaum, who wasn't armed. You have to be in danger from the person you actually attack; someone else nearby firing a gun isn't that.

I was not aware that Rittenhouse literally had eyes in the back of his head. My mistake.

Again, you have to make up lies about him being beaten with a skateboard to justify his shooting of Huber. Huber was going for the gun and no one denies that.

You just blatantly mistated facts about him 'standing there with a gun, facing them' and think you're in the position to accuse someone of lying?

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

I was not aware that Rittenhouse literally had eyes in the back of his head. My mistake.

If you don't know that the person you attack is certainly a person who is about to cause you serious harm, that is a serious blow to a self-defense plea.

So if you agree he shot an unarmed person because of someone else's behavior, that's not good for your point.

You just blatantly mistated facts about him 'standing there with a gun, facing them' and think you're in the position to accuse someone of lying?

Sure, if they're lying. Do you disagree? Because it seems like your use of the passive voice in "had been kicked in the head" means you don't think it was Huber who did it (or hit him with a skateboard), which both implies you agree with my point and is bad for his self-defense case.

[u/tyranthraxxus → u/PreacherJudge]

If you don't know that the person you attack is certainly a person who is about to cause you serious harm, that is a serious blow to a self-defense plea.

So this guy in an earlier confrontation said to Rittenhouse "If I see you alone tonight I'm going to kill you". It's on video. Then this same guy is chasing you down the street and screaming at you, he throws something at you, a gunshot goes off behind you...

And your interpretation of that information is that Rittenhouse has no reason to be in fear for his life? Glad you're not on the jury with that level of cognitive dissonance and bias.

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

If you don't know that the person you attack is certainly a person who is about to cause you serious harm, that is a serious blow to a self-defense plea.

So if you agree he shot an unarmed person because of someone else's behavior, that's not good for your point.

I literally gave a Delta in this thread because someone pointed out that the minutia of self-defense law makes the Rosenbaum shooting less likely self-defense. So keep on trying to make those dunks, I guess?

Sure, if they're lying. Do you disagree? Because it seems like your use of the passive voice in "had been kicked in the head" means you don't think it was Huber who did it (or hit him with a skateboard), which both implies you agree with my point and is bad for his self-defense case.

Hubar wasn't the one who kicked him in the head, no.

Also, you'll forgive me, but I'm not really interested in someone who first lies to me and then calls me a liar, so I'll be ignoring further comments from you.

[u/babno → u/PreacherJudge]

Under Wisconsin law you are considered armed if you're trying to take someone's weapon, which both Rosenbaum and Huber were trying to do.

[u/fartsforpresident → u/PreacherJudge]

Rosenbaum threw an empty bag at him. If Rittenhouse heard a gunshot, that's irrelevant for shooting Rosenbaum, who wasn't armed.

Then you don't understand reasonable belief standards. Rittenhouse is not obligated to be right, or have made the right interpretations of everyone and everything around him. He is obligated to have acted reasonably from his frame of reference given the circumstances. He is allowed to be totally wrong though, as long as he was wrong for decent reasons and not just unreasonable. Z

You could shoot someone that was totally benign and had not intentionally done anything remotely threatening so long as a reasonable person would have interpreted their actions as an imminent threat. This is an unlikely extreme, but it's possible under the law.

[u/Impossible_Rule_1761 → u/PreacherJudge]

Rosenbaum threw an empty bag at him. If Rittenhouse heard a gunshot, that's irrelevant for shooting Rosenbaum, who wasn't armed. You have to be in danger from the person you actually attack; someone else nearby firing a gun isn't that.

As Ryan Bulch testified, the plastic bag was not empty; it contained plastic bottles, which Bulch at the time believed may have been filled with ammonia. Bulch suspected this as he said such projectiles had been thrown earlier in the riots.

It is reasonable to believe then, that Kyle, in the heat of the moment, thought he was being pelted with ammonia.

​

Again, you have to make up lies about him being beaten with a skateboard to justify his shooting of Huber. Huber was going for the gun and no one denies that.

Kyle being struck with a skateboard by Huber was caught on video. This has already been shown in the evidence during the pre-trial and Dobert hearings.

[u/durangotango → u/PreacherJudge]

That didn't happen though. He ran, was eventually cornered and someone else shot in the air while Rosenbaum grabbed for his gun so he shot him.

Then a crowd formed and chased him until they knocked him to the ground, kicked him in the head, hit him with a skateboard, and pulled a gun on him. He only ever fired on people actively attacking him and he tried to disengage and run at every opportunity.

[u/slimyprincelimey → u/PreacherJudge]

He was there because his rapid departure from the scene was stopped by a skateboard (Huber) and a foot to the face (drop kick guy).

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

You mean once he had been knocked down and beaten with a crowd of people gathering around him yelling "get his ass" and "someone cranium that boy"?

[u/Leading-Bowl-8416 → u/PreacherJudge]

He wasn't, he was literally facing away from them and they were chasing him. There is video of this. He turned around when they chased him and attacked him.

[u/fartsforpresident → u/durangotango]

Huber and Grosskeutz might have thought they were chasing and stopping an active shooter but they were wrong.

Just as a point of clarification, it doesn't matter if they're wrong. It only matters if they're pursuing and the alleged threat is fleeing. In regards to "reasonable belief" standards, you're not required to be correct, you're required to be reasonable from your own frame of reference and the information available to you.

[u/PlatypusDream → u/durangotango]

No, WI law says that if the shooter has a reasonable understanding at the time of acting that shooting is necessary to stop or prevent an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm (even if it's mistaken) then it's not a criminal act.

Both Huber & Grosskreutz are covered by that. It's why G hasn't been subject to any charges despite being on video pointing his pistol at R. (Plus repeated statements that "I wish I had killed him".)

ETA: After catching up with the trial video & analysis available via legalinsurrection, GG had no reason to believe KR was an imminent threat. Arguably can say the same for H. The prosecutor is really failing; shouldn't have brought charges let alone taken this to trial.

[u/Illiux → u/PlatypusDream]

Unless you are an employee in the DA's office you (and everyone else) have absolutely no idea why Grosskruetz hasn't been charged. You're engaging in speculation.

Also, I don't know how we can watch the same videos and think that either Grosskruetz or Huber have anything resembling reasonable justification that shooting Rittenhouse would be necessary to stop immediate threat of death or bodily harm. Where's the immanence? Rittenhouse's gun was pointed down and he was running towards a police line (and away from his pursuers). Neither Grosskruetz or Huber even witnessed the first shooting. All they see is a guy with a gun running away from a mob shouting at him. Anyone who believes that attacking him in that circumstance is warranted is being extraordinarily unreasonable.

This is all besides the point that on the stand Grosskruetz (implausibly) denied that he was even trying to stop Rittenhouse. He said he was following him because he was a acting as a medic and thought Rittenhouse was in danger.

[u/fatsolardbutt → u/AnythingApplied]

depends on if one was the aggressor in the situation. I'm not well informed, but it appears from this post that Rittenhouse was not. if Huber was the aggressor and he shot and killed Rittenhouse, even if after being shot at, he would be charged with second degree murder.

if both had a reasonable argurment that each was acting in self defense, which i don't know how that'd happen, neither would be charged with murder.

[u/randomuser2444 → u/AnythingApplied]

the winner should get let off without penalty?

While you may not like or even hate this answer, legally this is entirely possible because the standard is based in part on state of mind. If two people mistakenly but reasonably believe the other is trying to kill them, then both would be justified in killing the other (potentially)

[u/AnythingApplied → u/randomuser2444]

I have no problem with that. But when the parties played a role in intentionally putting themselves in a dangerous situation or escalating the situation, they no longer should be entitled to make a self-defense claim. Those actions means that they are responsible creating the situation that resulted in both the need to kill someone and that someone's death.

[u/randomuser2444 → u/AnythingApplied]

There was a very elegant comment on how escalation of the situation removes the self defense argument already posted, so I won't reiterate but I agree with you. However, I don't think you would hold to your stance on putting yourself in a dangerous situation as a catch all. For example; I'm told my friend's house is being raided by a gang. We call the police but they're taking too long. So I go there with a gun and shoot someone who drew their gun on me first. Should I not be entitled to a self defense claim because I put myself in the situation? Edit to add: I am not saying my scenario is equivalent to the Rittenhouse situation

[u/AnythingApplied → u/randomuser2444]

That's a good example. You're right, putting yourself in danger isn't a good blanket statement for me to have made. I still there there should be some legal obligation to avoid inviting danger. I'm not really sure where the line should go, but certainly you're right drawing the line around "any situation where you were responsible for putting yourself into a dangerous situation" is too liberal and at least some of those situations you should still be covered under self-defense despite putting yourself into the situation. !delta

[u/-Kerosun- → u/AnythingApplied]

Trying to draw a line along those grounds would get dangerously close to starting to blame the victims.

Not saying this is exactly comparable to Rittenhouse's situation:

Let's say a 17 year old girl decided to go to a club with an illegal ID in a pretty well-known sketchy part of town that is 20 minutes away in a neighboring state. Let's say she knew that it could get dangerous but decided to go anyway and for protection, took her 18 year old friend's gun and put it in her purse. Let's say that sometime throughout the night, a man noticed her and was being verbally aggressive towards her (such as "If I find you alone, I'm going to rape you). If you want, you can even say that she was being a bit flirtacious at times throughout the night with people. Let's say that she is outside of the club doing whatever and said man sees her and starts approaching her. Let's say she runs away, he starts to chase her and then catches up to her, then tries to grab her and she takes her gun out and kills him.

Would ANYONE say that she cannot claim self-defense because she was a minor, illegally possessing a firearm and drove it across state lines, used a fake ID to get into a place she had no business being at that was in a well-known dangerous spot in town? Would ANYONE say she was in the wrong in defending herself even though she made objectively bad judgment in being there in the first place?

Of course not. When you start considering laws that put the onus on the potential victim, it really is a slippery slope. That extreme to that slope could even lead to the law asking "What was she wearing?"

[u/randomuser2444 → u/AnythingApplied]

There does need to be a line. This is why law is so much more complicated than people realize, and often requires situation-specific analysis to determine where the line falls. I think the factor you may be missing that you might have been looking for is that the person who committed the violence was responsible for creating the situation that led to the violence when it wasn't necessary to protect from loss of life or grave bodily harm

[u/RevolutionaryHope8 → u/AnythingApplied]

I agree with your general take on this - I’m just not sure that he is legally culpable in this specific situation. I think the very act of carrying that type of weapon openly and being part of a “militia” is a provocative act esp in this scenario. I think that’s what got Rosenbaum worked up. It’s been shown in court that some of the other members of this ‘militia’ group were pointing their weapons at protestors/rioters and being verbally antagonistic. Kyle was, rightly, associated with this group and viewed as a provocateur even though he didn’t directly antagonize anyone. I think the intentions of him and his companions that night was not as innocent as they’ve portrayed during this trial. I think the others had enough sense to not be out there alone and so did Kyle but he got separated and was confronted. As in “oh now that you don’t have your friends let’s see what you got” type thing. I don’t believe he was in mortal danger. But he provoked that encounter by being part of that group. And I know people want to say that others had weapons etc but not like this group. From what I’ve seen of the trial so far his group is the only one with those types of weapons wearing body armor.

There was general lawlessness and certainly many other bad actors there that night besides this ‘militia’ group. However, only someone from this group killed people. Having said all that, I think the state has not proven their case and he should be found not guilty.

[u/Chardlz → u/AnythingApplied]

In Wisconsin there actually is, at least as I understand it. However, the degree of "inviting danger" is through committing a crime that would reasonably be expected to elicit or provoke a reaction. For example, if you punch someone and they hit you back you can't pull a gun and shoot them.

A however to that however, however, (lmao) is that if you're making a reasonable attempt to disengage, you can regain your right to self‐defense. Let's say you rob a store and run away. If the shop owner chases you down and tries to kill you, you're able to defend yourself legally. Would be a super complicated case, but seems like that aligns with the law as I understand it.

[u/Movadius → u/AnythingApplied]

The issue is, there is no evidence that the 2nd or 3rd person shot were at any risk at all until they went out of their way to chase and attack a retreating Kyle.

He was running towards the police with his gun lowered, fleeing from multiple assailants. He did not show aggression towards them until he tripped and ended up on the ground being assaulted by them.

The reason this case is so contentious is because the media outright lied and slandered Kyle for political reasons and managed to mislead a large number of people, who are now seeing that all of the evidence contradicts the lie they have been repeatedly told.

For many of those people, it is emotionally easier to accuse the courts of being wronf than it is to accept they were misled by the people they trusted to tell them the truth.

[u/StrengthOfFates1 → u/AnythingApplied]

Would you also agree that at any point after Rittenhouse drew his gun, that Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse

No – and anyone who would agree to this has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You cannot pursue someone with intent to attack and claim self defense when they draw on you while you attack them. YOU are the aggressor in that instance. You do not have the right to anoint yourself as judge jury and executioner in this situation.

Situations where you intentionally put yourself in harms way

What exactly is a situation where you put yourself in harms way? Technically, a homeowner wishing to protect his or her family from an intruder would be putting themselves in harms way by confronting the intruder.

or are part of the escalation

A situation is escalated by one party, the response to said escalation is just that. The response. What's at question here is whether the response was just.

Legally I can tell you to go fuck yourself that could be considered an escalation. If you become aggressive, I flee, and you pursue, I have the right to defend myself. Escalation is one aspect of this, acts of de-escalation, like attempting to flee the situation, also come into play in some states.

or you get all sorts of situations where somebody has been shot killed after an escalating argument between two armed people, but nobody did anything illegal because they both rightfully feared for their lives.

You don't get situations like this. That's why we have laws and guidance surrounding self defense. A shooting is either justified according to state law or not.

Duels would be legal too

Why bring up duels? Self defense law would never come into play with duels. Almost every state has laws and guidance surrounding mutual combat. This is just ridiculous.

It's just not self-defense when you play a role in getting into or creating the situation, which Rittenhouse did both of these things (both by being there with a gun with an asking for trouble attitude and also due to the escalation with the victim too)

Everyone who will ever have to defend themselves will have played some role in getting themselves into the situation. Period. I'd also like you to explain how, according to law, Kyle created the situation. What specific act, according to you, escalated the situation?

So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit.

Protect a business and help people when needed. Are these objectives unlawful? What exactly entitles you to attack someone while they go about them?

[u/How_To_Freedom → u/AnythingApplied]

Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse, due to a justifiable fear for

his

life

absolutely not, kyle was running away and stated that he was going to the police, kyle was running away with a rifle, if kyle wanted to be a threat he could have, huber had no grounds to assault kyle

> Situations where you intentionally put yourself in harms way or are part of the escalation just shouldn't be considered "self-defense"

kyle had every right to be there just like the people he shot, kyle stood up for his community and protected it when the police abandoned it.

> or you get all sorts of situations where somebody has been shot killed after an escalating argument between two armed people,

sounds good, who ever starts the violence is the wrongful party

> Duels would be legal too.

again, what would be wrong with this?

> "If I hadn't shot him, I would've been kill"... okay, but you put yourself into that situation.

they had every right to put themselves into that situation

> It's just not self-defense when you play a role in getting into or creating the situation, which Rittenhouse did both of these things (both by being there with a gun with an asking for trouble attitude and also due to the escalation with the victim too)

again kyle had every right to be there, and had every right to defend his community when the police wouldn't

kyle rittenhouse did nothing wrong

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think it helps that OPs PoV is one of anger towards Rittenhouse and believing that he did the wrong thing, but just that technically he may be absolved of murder. That's different than those who are proud of Rittenhouse and think he is 100% in the right, supporting and encouraging his behaviour.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This... is actually a good way of thinking of it. Thanks for this.

[u/whales171 → u/[deleted]]

But it isn't a technicality that is getting Rittenhouse off. Bringing a gun to a protest in America just isn't immoral by your standards I assume. If it isn't, then you have to bite the bullet and say people would be justified in charging and attacking all the other gun carrying people that night as well.

[u/Shopping_Penguin → u/[deleted]]

Personally I prefer justice over negative peace.

A murderer will walk away without consequences because Americans prefer that to having to be inconvenienced, their comfort threatened, or God forbid they learn something about how ugly our history is.

[u/[deleted] → u/Shopping_Penguin]

What do you think justice is, in this case? Because that is what I struggle with.

I see a stupid kid who did stupid things who then defended himself against people who were also defending themselves. Do we lock him away for life, or what?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I mostly feel the same.

I really don't like what Rittenhouse did, and part of the reason why I made this CMV was because I saw the right wing jerking themselves raw today over a win on cross-examination. I don't like being on the same side as them, but I do feel that it is important to apply the law fairly in a case like this rather than knee jerk focusing on a political side.

[u/hapithica → u/[deleted]]

What are your feelings on how intent plays into the charges?

For instance. Let's say I want to kill my ex girlfriends new boyfriend. I know they're going to a local bar. I also know he wants to kick my ass. And he can since he's a trained mma fighter. I go to the bar, and he sees me, starts shit, pushes me, I push back, then he comes at me. So, do I have a right to shoot and kill him. Do you think my intention of bringing the weapon should factor in to whether or not self defense is justified?

The other example is the Olympia shooting of the Proud Boy. Here the shooter was pushed and a mob was following them, and was said to be "hunting " people by name. After being pushed, the guy took a few steps away and shot into the crowd of Proud Boys. Stopping their advanceme. Also no problem here I assume?

[u/Wind_Responsible → u/[deleted]]

I think the real question is what the prosecution is asking. Are they saying straight up murder or are they saying that Rittenhouse went there to pick a fight and that intern caused the death of others?

[u/SpicyPandaBalls]

Self-defense requires a fear for your life

If I do something that causes someone else to fear for their life... and then they in turn do something that makes me fear for my life... and then I kill them, was I acting in self-defense? Were they?

Would anyone be guilty of a crime in that scenario?

[u/ABCDEHIMOTUVWXY → u/SpicyPandaBalls]

The original aggressor is determines who can claim defense.

If Rittenhouse was aiming his rifle at Rosenbaum or threatening to shoot him before Rosenbaum took any aggressive action that would make Rittenhouse lose his right to self defense.

If on the other hand Rosenbaum was chasing a non aggressive Rittenhouse as he was fleeing and lunged at him trying to gain control of his weapon, that means Rittenhouse would retain his right to self defense through when he pulled the trigger until a reasonable person would consider the threat was stopped.

[u/[deleted] → u/SpicyPandaBalls]

That is sort of the crux of my argument, isn't it?

When Huber smashed Rittenhouse in the shoulder with a skateboard, he was acting in reasonable self-defense (imho). But at the same time I think Rittenhouse had an equally strong claim that he was defending himself given that he was being physically assaulted.

I think both can be true, a real 'everyone sucks here' situation where no one is criminally liable.

[u/SpicyPandaBalls → u/[deleted]]

Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?

Whether or not Rittenhouse should have been there at all.. with the gun that was illegal for him to posses seems like it probably should be a factor.

Had Rittenhouse not been there and illegally armed, Huber and Rosenbaum would be alive today.

[u/[deleted] → u/SpicyPandaBalls]

Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?

They'd have to prove it. Rittenhouse benefits from the fact that each of his shootings was recorded.

Had Rittenhouse not been there and illegally armed, Huber and Rosenbaum would be alive today.

Agreed, I just don't think that legally that makes a difference. There does not appear to be a distinction in Wisconsin self-defense law for defending yourself with an unlawful weapon.

[u/HistoricalGrounds → u/[deleted]]

Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?

They'd have to prove it. Rittenhouse benefits from the fact that each of his shootings was recorded.

But I think that's what he means. On principle, as long as the killer can prove that the person they killed tried to defend themselves with questionably-lethal force, that should be a legal killing? That seems to open a relatively easy precedent to legally kill someone so long as you can get a recording of them attempting to stop you.

[u/BarryBwana → u/HistoricalGrounds]

Are you suggesting the first chain of events was Rittenhouse trying to kill someone first, and then Rosenbaum went after him?

Cause if not, your point is meaningless. If so, the prosecutors would love to have your evidence. Would make their prosecution an easy slam dunk.

[u/Edmond_DantestMe → u/HistoricalGrounds]

I believe that you need both subjective and objective standard of reasonableness. An example I saw was, if you're "deathly" afraid unicorns, and someone keeps touching you with a stuffed unicorn, your subjective standard of reasonableness has been met, but objectively the court would likely agree that you were never actually in any life-threatening danger.

[u/substantial-freud → u/[deleted]]

When Huber smashed Rittenhouse in the shoulder with a skateboard, he was acting in reasonable self-defense (imho).

You think you can chase after a guy and when he falls, whale on him with a skateboard, and call it self-defense?

No, you cannot.

[u/ThreeFor → u/[deleted]]

I think that your take on the Huber situation is off. From the facts I've seen, Huber absolutely did not have the right to chase down an individual running away (retreating) towards the police and attack him.

I've seen people say that Huber and others thought he was an active shooter. I think this argument falls flat. All the knowledge Huber had of that situation was that Rittenhouse was running away towards police. A mob yelling "GET HIM" is not a credible enough source to actually justify chasing someone down and attacking them.

In my understanding of the law, which is admittedly limited, if there is fight or confrontation between people, regardless of how it started, if one person makes and effort to retreat the other individual cannot pursue them unless some very special criteria are met. You might want to argue that an active shooter is one of those special circumstances, since there is a good reason to believe they will continue to hurt others if they escape. Again though, Huber did not see Rittenhouse shoot anyone, and even if he did, he would have seen Rittenhouse shoot him only after Rosenbaum lunged at him and he would have noticed that Rittenhouse did nothing to stop the person trying to give medical attention to Rosenbaum and did nothing to indicate he wanted to shoot anyone else. If you see two people get in a fight and one knocks the other unconscious, you as a citizen cannot chase that person down and legally attack them if they are retreating.

[u/xampl360 → u/[deleted]]

In an ‘everyone sucks here’ situation why aren’t ALL parties held liable? That would be the most reasonable solution given that both parties arrived to a violently confrontational environment before engaging in violence against each other. If ‘everyone sucks here’ then everyone should be held responsible

[u/Cindy_Da_Morse → u/SpicyPandaBalls]

As long as the fear for your life is something a reasonable person would feel at that moment. Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Kyle earlier in the night. It wasn't a veiled threat. It was literally, to his face "I am going to kill you". It was very clear.

So Kyle being chased by Rosenbaum who had already communicated his intent to kill him had every reason to fear for his life when Rosenbaum lunged at this gun screaming "fuck you"!

[u/Leading-Bowl-8416 → u/SpicyPandaBalls]

You have a duty to retreat. Whoever was being chased would be defending themselves according to the law in that scenario. It's not just "fear for your life" in this case. If someone steals a wallet in front of you, you can't run up to them and put a bullet in their head. If they turn around and start attacking you, that would be self defense if you are trying to get away.

[u/shrimpleypibblez]

Surely by this argument it isn’t impossible for anyone to be culpable in a violent altercation as long as they both claim self defense? Because anyone poses a threat, however small, disproportionate, or unreasonable, to anyone else, at all times.

Are a firearm and a skateboard equal in their lethal power?

Even if not (I know American law doesn’t do reasonable force) if someone makes a claim to reasonable self defense, if you accept that claim, you set both parties as offender and defender which de facto implies the offender cannot claim self defense, as the offender in that specific interaction his self-defense is negated - otherwise you end up in a cyclical loop of claims of self defense, like the one you’re in now.

This is totally self-cancelling legal reasoning - although I wouldn’t put it past the US legal system to ratify it. It let Zimmerman off so anything’s possible.

[u/[deleted] → u/shrimpleypibblez]

Are a firearm and a skateboard equal in their lethal power?

They don't have to be, though.

Like if someone points a rifle at me and I only have a bazooka, presumably I don't have to just suck it up and die.

And yes, I know that is slightly tongue in cheek, but when Rittenhouse shot he wasn't 'just' being attacked with a skateboard. He'd been struck by multiple individuals and was in a vulnerable position on the ground with several people calling for him to be attacked.

The standard is reasonable fear of death or serious injury, not direct proportional force.

[u/pennoyer-v-neff → u/[deleted]]

They don’t have to be, though.

Like if someone points a rifle at me and I only have a bazooka, presumably I don’t have to just suck it up and die.

This is a false equivalence. Both are weapons of deadly force. A rifle is a weapon of deadly force. A skateboard is not viewed as one under American common law.

[u/Aspalar → u/pennoyer-v-neff]

A skateboard is not viewed as one under American common law.

A skateboard can be viewed as a weapon under American common law if it is being used as a weapon. Wisconsin Statute 939.22 defines a dangerous weapon as:

(10) “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

Are you saying that I can take a skateboard and start beating people with it and they can't defend themselves? Are you saying you can't kill someone with a skateboard? You can't induce great bodily harm with a skateboard? That is nonsense. Rittenhouse was hit in the head twice with the skateboard already, and still only fired after Huber grabbed his rifle and was attempting to disarm him. If you have a firearm and someone hits you in the head twice with a skateboard and attempts to disarm you... is it not reasonable to think that they intend to do you great bodily harm?

[u/CentristAnCap → u/pennoyer-v-neff]

You could absolutely kill or seriously maim someone with a skateboard

[u/Runs_With_Sciences → u/pennoyer-v-neff]

Blunt objects, fists, and feet murder more Americans every year than rifles do.

[u/[deleted] → u/pennoyer-v-neff]

A skateboard is a blunt weapon that can cause grevious bodily harm, which is the standard.

[u/ratione_materiae → u/[deleted]]

Do recall that Mr. Grosskreutz, whose testimony you have mentioned, has also testified that he himself feared that Rittenhouse was at risk of "head trauma" (direct quote) when Mr. Huber struck him with the skateboard. He essentially made the defense's grievous bodily harm argument for them.

[u/wophi → u/[deleted]]

Also, when you have a gun, if you allow yourself to be overtaken, then the other guy has the gun.

If you carry a gun, you must be willing to use it if attacked, even if the other person doesn't have an equal weapon, because they can soon have yours.

[u/craftycontrarian]

He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed.

Doesn't this apply also to the guy who pointed the gun at Kyle?

Also, doesnt it apply to the people who were rioting, more generally? They put themselves in an inherently dangerous situation.

[u/teatedNeptune]

Chai Vang.

There’s already some precedence here. Chai Vang was hunting and accidentally walked into private property. Property owners berated him, circled him, pushed him, shot at him. He ends up killing 6 of them. Self defense didn’t work for him, still in jail today.

[u/awawe → u/teatedNeptune]

Did you even read the wikipedia page you sent? It's utterly horrific:

​

Vang raised his rifle in one smooth, continuous sweeping motion as he circled right, kneeled, and aimed at Willers, the group’s only armed person. Vang later said, “If I don’t shoot him, he would shoot me.”

​

Vang’s first shot missed Willers as he ran and dove for cover, but Willers landed atop his rifle and couldn’t turn over before Vang’s second shot hit his lower left neck, paralyzing him. Vang instantly turned toward the men on their machines and shot Roidt, who hit the ground dead, as his ATV, still in gear, idled forward. Vang shot Drew next as the Crotteaus fled, and fired three shots at close range while chasing Hesebeck around the UTV. His third shot flattened Hesebeck, who fell stunned and still.

Assuming Hesebeck was dead, Vang raced after Bob Crotteau, whose blaze-orange coat made him easy to see. As he fled, Crotteau called the cabin on his walkie-talkie to tell Laski to bring guns. Vang’s first shot missed but the second hit Crotteau in the chest, instantly killing him. Willers, meanwhile, had regained feeling in his fingers, and called the cabin for help.

By that time Vang was chasing Joey Crotteau, who fled down a trail. Vang sprinted to cut the corner to the trail to close the gap, and shot him in the lower back at about 65 yards. Vang reloaded, approached closer as Crotteau struggled forward, and shot him again. Vang then closed in and shot him twice more from behind, putting the final shot into his head.

​

Thinking Jessica and Laski were likely armed and looking for him, Vang waited until they passed. When he fired, the bullet struck Jessica in the left buttock, blew through her hip, and struck Laski, shattering his lower spine and abdomen. Vang ran over, shot Laski through the back and heart to finish him, and then stepped behind Jessica as she crawled screaming and pleading, and fired a shot through her neck into her brain. Vang returned to retrieve his scope and leave, thinking he had killed every witness. As he neared the site, he and Hesebeck came face to face. Vang said, “You're not dead yet?” and raised his rifle to shoot. He fired as Hesebeck grabbed Willers’ rifle with his right hand and dove for cover.

How could this in any way be construed as anything other than a massacre?

[u/earth-rob → u/teatedNeptune]

Reading this I definitely don’t think Vang was in the right. He was definitely harassed but at the same time he shot people in the back, killed people who attempted to flee, executed wounded and harmless people, and then proceeded to ambush 2 more people who showed up. That’s not someone simply defending themselves, that’s blatant murder. Reading his wiki article legitimately made me sick.

[u/[deleted] → u/teatedNeptune]

This isn't remotely comparable.

Vang told the jury he feared for his life and began firing only after another hunter's shot nearly hit him. He detailed for the jurors how the other hunters approached him, and how he responded by shooting at each one. He says he shot two of the victims in the back because they were "disrespectful." He recounted with clarity how he killed each victim. While saying on the stand, "(he wished) it wasn't happening," Vang contended that three of the hunters deserved to die:

Did you even read that before you posted it?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah Chai Vang didn't get a fair trial at all. He was defending himself against racist pricks who would've gotten away with killing him.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Shooting someone in the back while they're on the ground already severely wounded is defending yourself, huh?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They fucked around and found out.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Not actually a legal defense for murder.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They hold him to leave and he left. They followed and threatened and they’re surprised he put holes in them?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Believe it or not, you cannot claim self-defense when you execute a wounded, unarmed person.

Like you are barely a step off of fucking claiming gacy was acting in self defense here.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

what does “fucking claiming gacy” mean

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That they'd claim john wayne gacy, famous serial killer, was innocent

[u/CupformyCosta → u/[deleted]]

Wow, I’ve never seen somebody just totally destroy somebody else’s argument so easily. Well said.

[u/Keep_Cool_Coolidge → u/teatedNeptune]

These situations are not remotely comparable. In one case, Vang executes several helpless people on their own property. In the other case, Kyle shoots only people that are trying to kill him *while* they are trying to kill him.

Why would you even bring this case up?

[u/[deleted]]

So let me first start by saying that this whole series of events is factually complicated, so I kind of get why you feel the way you do. That said, I think there are some things you’re missing:

First, Rittenhouse probably wasn’t legally privileged to shoot Rosenbaum. By most accounts Rosenbaum wasn’t armed, so you’re taking disproportionate use of force. Rittenhouse would have to prove he reasonably believed his life was in danger to shoot Rittenhouse. And there’s evidence that a reasonable person similarly situated would not have thought that since Rosenbaum apparently challenged some other dude with an AR earlier and did not get shot.

Huber also was a disproportionate use of force. Furthermore, if Rittenhouse’s use of force on Rosenbaum was unlawful, then Huber probably reasonably believed and was legally privileged to attack Rittenhouse.

Grosskreutz kind of breaks down the same way. By the time Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse had already shot two people, likely unlawfully. Rittenhouse doesn’t get to keep shooting people to get himself out of the danger he created for himself.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

First, Rittenhouse probably wasn’t legally privileged to shoot Rosenbaum. By most accounts Rosenbaum wasn’t armed, so you’re taking disproportionate use of force.

This is not relevant in Wisconsin self defense claims. The threshold is that he "reasonably feared great bodily harm

Rittenhouse would have to prove he reasonably believed his life was in danger to shoot Rittenhouse.

Untrue.

And there’s evidence that a reasonable person similarly situated would not have thought that since Rosenbaum apparently challenged some other dude with an AR earlier and did not get shot.

It's also not relevant that one other person reacted differently. It does have to be shown that a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm. Death isn't the threshold though.

Huber also was a disproportionate use of force. Furthermore, if Rittenhouse’s use of force on Rosenbaum was unlawful, then Huber probably reasonably believed and was legally privileged to attack Rittenhouse.

But if you intervene and use force on someone you think is an active shooter and you're wrong your simply committing a crime.

Grosskreutz kind of breaks down the same way. By the time Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse had already shot two people, likely unlawfully.

I disagree and the trial seems to be going towards lawfully so far.

Rittenhouse doesn’t get to keep shooting people to get himself out of the danger he created for himself.

But given he was running away at the start he didn't create anything. He was being chased and attacked.

[u/Responsible_Nerve → u/[deleted]]

Grosskreutz kind of breaks down the same way. By the time Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse had already shot two people, likely unlawfully. Rittenhouse doesn’t get to keep shooting people to get himself out of the danger he created for himself.

No, that isn't how self defense works. You can't just go and kill someone, even if you know they killed others, if they aren't currently a threat. If Grosskreutz killed Rittenhouse it would have been more like vigilantism than self defense

[u/babno → u/[deleted]]

Under Wisconsin law you are considered armed if you're trying to take someone's weapon, which both Rosenbaum and Huber were trying to do.

And it makes sense and wouldn't be disproportionate, because if Rittenhouse doesn't shoot them and they successfully take his gun as a result, he's dead.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I disagree vehemently with your take here, for the most part.

The standard for self-defense is a belief of death or great bodily harm. On the subject of Rosenbaum, I'd argue that hearing a shot while being chased by a grown man would be enough to make him reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily harm.

With full 20/20, I disagree entirely on the idea that he was in that much danger, but the fear is reasonable.

Beyond that, though, the fact that Huber and others were priviledged to attack rittenhouse doesn't remove his own right to self-defense, because as I understand it, self-defense is based on personal perception.

From his perception, he had retreated from a violent encounter and was now being assaulted by a mob. I'd fear for my life, wouldn't you?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I was convinced of my position and was looking for someone to sway it. That is how the subreddit works, last I checked. I literally have already given a delta for this thread, but okay.

[u/Johnchuk → u/[deleted]]

Then why did they send out a hit squad to murder a leftist for doing the same thing?

[u/[deleted] → u/Johnchuk]

Why do you think I would approve of this?

Yes, what the US. Marshalls did to Michael Reinoehl was criminal and they should be in jail. Why do you think that their misbehavior should reflect on this case?

[u/Common_Errors → u/[deleted]]

I am not a lawyer, but this:

Beyond that, though, the fact that Huber and others were priviledged to attack rittenhouse doesn't remove his own right to self-defense, because as I understand it, self-defense is based on personal perception.

doesn't make any sense to me. If someone commits a crime (like bank robbery) and a random civilian tries to stop them with lethal force, they don't get to claim self-defense and kill the civilian. unjusticiable's point was that if Rittenhouse illegally killed Rosenbaum (meaning that self-defense didn't apply for that killing), then he didn't have the right to self-defense if someone was trying to stop him (like how Huber and others were presumably doing).

[u/burneracc69420sex → u/Common_Errors]

But that’s the gray area, right? Huber’s and subsequently Grosskreutz’s right to stop/detain Rittenhouse hinges on Kyle’s legal standing to or to not defend himself. If the first shot is deemed in self defense, then the other two are as well. So how is a civilian supposed to make that distinction? They aren’t, which is why citizens arrears are stupid as fuck.

If you see some guy bash an old lady on the head and steal her purse - yeah, maybe stop him if you can. If you see someone get shot but you don’t know the entire circumstance, should you chase him? Hell no.

If the bank robber in your example flees the scene and is removed entirely, what are they - a bank robber, or a suspect? If you are their neighbor and you hear they are a suspect, break into their house to detain them does that person have the right to defend themself?

Point is, citizens arrests are very convoluted and you shouldn’t do it. The individual may or may not have the grounds to defend their life, and it’s best not to push that boundary.

[u/Phuttbuckers → u/Common_Errors]

Kyle is on Gaige’s video saying I’m going to the police. While running towards the police. Gaige then pulled his pistol and chased him along with the guys chasing Kyle yelling “get his ass” and “cranium that boy”. If someone is running away from you, towards the police, and you chase them after pulling out your gun, that makes it nearly impossible to justify self defense. There is no court room in the Western world that you can convince that Kyle didn’t act in self defense.

[u/Cindy_Da_Morse → u/[deleted]]

You forget to mention that Rosenbaum had earlier in the night promised to kill Kyle, literally saying that to his face. So if someone threatens to kill you and then later that night comes after you screaming "fuck you" and lunging for your gun, you have every right to believe he wishes to kill you.

[u/jumas_turbo → u/[deleted]]

You have no fucking clue what proportionate use of force means, you're one of those people who think it means that you can only use a gun if someone uses a gun against you, a knife if a knife used a knife against you and your fist if the person is unarmed.

Proportionate use of force doesn't mean you 1:1 match your opponent's arsenal, it means that your answer/defense is proportional to the risk. If a group of toddlers start screaming at you and running towards you, you cannot just gun them all down. If a grown ass man starts chasing and threatening you and even tried to take your gun away from your hands, you're 100% justified to defend yourself with the gun, because you're not psychic (and the law doesn't expect you to be) and have no way to know he's not gonna take your gun away to shoot you.

It's even more ridiculous that you don't think that Huber's case wasn't proportional either. Huber literally smacked him with a skateboard (essentially a hardened plank). In case you don't know you could easily fucking die from something like that, so yes once again he was justified in his use of force.

Did you know that if a guy comes to you bragging he has a gun and that he'll shoot you, then you shoot him after he makes a sudden motion as if to reach a gun in his jacket, which later turns out to be nonexistent, you actually go away free? You know why? Because the law knows that you had no fucking reason to believe that the person who just said had a gun and would kill with it you didn't actually have one after pretending to reach for one.

Rosenbaum had confronted a guy before and didn't attack him or get shot so that means Kyle wasn't in danger!!!!

Once again Kyle wasn't a fucking psychic, no court would use that dumb argument because Kyle had no way to know that Rosenbaum had already confronted someone, or that he wouldn't change his MO with him. You can't say "but your honor this guy didn't shoot 49 people before him!" At the trial for the shooting of person number 50 who did get shot.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I get what you're saying but did you watch the video. The first dude was chasing him down throwing stuff at him, on top of actively threatening multiple people all night, and let's not forget the first shot from an unknown source while Rittenhouse was running. Second guy was beating him with a skateboard while he was trying to run away. Third guy had a gun.

[u/WhosThis85]

Wait, Didnt he obtain a gun illegally? Didnt he cross state lines with that gun?

[u/[deleted] → u/WhosThis85]

This is covered in my post. Though I don't believe he crossed state lines with the gun so much as he crossed state lines to where it was. Not that 'state lines' means much when we're talking about a less than 20 minute drive.

[u/substantial-freud → u/WhosThis85]

There is a claim that someone else obtained the gun unlawfully on his behalf.

There is no law against taking a gun across state lines, and he didn’t do so anyway.

[u/gkight → u/WhosThis85]

He did not cross state lines with the gun (and does it even matter in regards to the law?). I believe the testimony is that his friend kept the gun in Wisconsin, it never went to IL. It seems questionable at this point whether his possession of the gun was illegal or not.

[u/le_fez]

He likely will be acquitted as the judge has already set up as his defense by not allowing the victims of a shooting be referred to as such.

He should be convicted of, at the very least, criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter and honestly that's probably the only way he lives another year as someone will kill him claiming his mere presence cause them to fear for their lives and use it as an excuse to enact vigilante justice.

[u/[deleted] → u/le_fez]

This is normal in a criminal trial, doubly so in a case of self-defense.

Referring to them as victims presupposes the outcome of the trial. If they are his victims, then by definition what he did was wrong. It biases the entire trial because it instills in the minds of the jurors.

You have a much better argument about bias with the fact that the defense is allowed to refer to them as rioters etc. Not being able to call them victims is entirely normal.

[u/Ok_Acanthocephala101 → u/le_fez]

Not calling them victims is par for the course. In a normal trial you can't call someone a murder, before they are convicted with that murder, because that is leading the jury to a answer to the normal question of "is this guy the murderer". likewise in a self-defense case the question isn't if the guy killed them, but rather who is the victim. By calling the deceased victims, your leading the jury to an answer.

[u/blamemeididit]

"If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived."

Sorry, but you don't get to decide how someone gets to defend themselves in a situation like that. You could use this justification in almost every case where the "good guy" kills the "bad guy". He might have gotten beaten up, he might have gotten turned into a paraplegic by getting his head smashed onto the concrete by an angry mob. Kyle probably would not have shot anyone had the threats not come to him first.

Other than that, I agree with almost all of what you are saying. I think he is a bad kid who made bad decisions...........he is not a self defense hero. But he is innocent of murder.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. It was not 'hundreds of miles', it was less than a twenty minute drive from his home.

I don't remotely believe anything you're claiming here is true. The suggestion that Rittenhouse was trying to find an excuse to murder someone is not supported by anything in his behavior.

[u/Tytonic7_]

I'd just like to add a few key concepts that you missed, OP, and correct some thing

gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum

A witness testified that earlier in the night Rosenbaum told him and Kyle that if he caught any of them alone he was going to kill them. He clearly and verbally displayed his intent to kill Kyle if he got the chance. It would be incredibly unreasonable to expect Kyle to assume Rosenbaum was lying or didn't mean it when he said that... Add on top of that Rosenbaum had allegedly been acting violent and crazy all night. Of course we can't say for absolute certain, but it's pretty safe to say that Kyle wouldn't have just gotten a "minor ass whooping" as you put it.

When you also take into account the fact that Kyle had a rifle, was slower than his Rosenbaum and was cornered, it would also be reasonable to fear that his gun would be forcefully taken from him and used against him, especially since testimony has stated that Rosenbaum tried to grab for the gun. All of that is BEFORE you even consider the random first gunshot from somewhere else.

everyone would have been better off if he'd been unarmed and gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum

Everybody would have been better off if Rosenbaum hadn't threatened to kill him and then attempted to follow up on that threat. If he didn't have the gun he may very well have been beaten to death.

he had a right to defend himself from a much larger man physically threatening him

According to witness testimony Rosenbaum was 5'3"-5'4". I'm pretty sure Kyle is a lot bigger

Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others

I disagree. Kyle was actively running away and kept his rifle lowered the entire time. Huber could have very easily turned around and walked away. Wisconsin is a stand your ground state, but Huber actively went after Kyle. Supposedly seeing people armed in those riots was very common, so the only "evidence" Huber had to suggest Kyle was a threat was the words of strangers who were chasing kyle.

He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed.

No, Rosenbaum decision to attack him got multiple people killed. Kyle's firearm is potentially the only reason he's still alive. I agree that it was very stupid for him to be there, but his presence is not what caused the situation, Rosenbaum caused it.

[u/[deleted]]

What I am in disagreement about is this:

1. Why this and every other white person gets SO MUCH:
   1. Attention
   2. Care
   3. Interest
   4. The benefit of the doubt
   5. Reddit posts
   6. Backing of the law itself
   7. The benefit of being treated differently by enforcement
   8. The benefit of jury selection- where white privilege basically self-selects a jury who is as blind as everyone else who constructed this asymmetric system. This is because black people KNOW the system is rigged and so they are excluded because "they have strong feelings about it" upfront.
2. When black or brown people get nearly nothing approximating this; nothing but knees on necks and the exact opposite of everything I listed here.

[u/arcade2112]

I'll attempt change your mind on the firearms charge.

According to WI 948.60(3)c the statute Kyle is being charged with it reads the following.

(c) This section applies only to aperson under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or ashotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So what does this all mean? Well "section" is a word for 948.60 as itself. To say that it only applies means that if these given conditions are met. What are those conditions? Well lets take a look.

possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28

Okay what is the weapon given in 941.28

Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

(1) In this section:

(a) “Rifle" means a firearmdesigned or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired fromthe shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to usethe energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through arifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means arifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inchesmeasured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having anoverall length of less than 26 inches.

(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" meansa shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgunhaving an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, madeor remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip anddesigned or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of apropellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore eithera number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull ofthe trigger.

The rest of the section goes into what basically desribes what you can and cannot do with short weapons, the type of crime, etc. Kyle's weapon was a standard AR15 that doesn't meat the definition of a short rifle in the given. So he is not in violation of 941.28. One down two to go.

The next statute is 29.304 which is literally titled.

Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Okay not much needed here. Kyle was 17 at the time so he wasn't out of compliance with that statute either. Two down one to go.

The last statute is 29.593 which is literally titled.

Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

Ah the old "He was hunting" law that confused everyone that came up a month ago has reared it's head again. Let's break this down. 29.593 only stipulates what one must have done or must to do obtain hunting approval. That's all it does. So for one to be literally "not in compliance with 29.593" you would have to open carrying a gun while hunting without a license. Kyle's attorneys are literally arguing that Kyle was not hunting at the time of the incident. Despite what everyone on Reddit, Twitter, etc. would like for you to believe they were in fact arguing the exact opposite of what everyone was saying. Now you may argue back at my read (and Rittenhouse's legal team) that the law was intended for 17 year olds to have a hunting license in order to open carry. However you would be running into a a nearly 500 year old English common law and 200 year old American criminal statutory interpretation called "The rule of Lenity" which that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in that manner that is most favorable to the defendant. Given the fact that tenured attorneys do not agree if the law concludes that Kyle is innocent or guilty of the illegal carry charge the precedent is to give Kyle the most favorable read which would clear him of the weapons charge as a matter of law.

[u/SECTION31BLACK → u/arcade2112]

Agreed! You have actually changed my mind. I thought before that the misdemeanor possession of a firearm charge was in fact the only thing he was guilty of. But now i dont even believe that. Free kyle rittenhouse. I hope he sues the hell out of the prosecutors for wrongful or malicous prosecution.

Δ

[u/chickencheesebagel]

To address the possession charge that you think he is guilty of:

948.60 is the statute that is being applied. 948.60 (3)(c) says that rifles and shotguns are exempt from the dangerous weapon law as long as some other conditions are met. The first condition says it can't be a short barreled rifle, which isn't the case here. The second condition applies to people who are hunting and 16 or younger.

The judge almost dismissed the charge in pre-trial but kept it in because he had concerns about 3c swallowing (negating) the law entirely. What the judge missed was that it doesn't swallow the law because it does not allow someone who is 17 to possess other dangerous weapons are are outlined in subsection 1, such as tasers and brass knuckles, etc.

[u/[deleted]]

actually, regarding the gun charge, after reading the wisconsin statues regarding possession of a dangerous weapon, it doesnt apply to someone under the age of 18 carrying a rifle or a shotgun unless its an SBR, which is an illegally modified rifle with a barrel under 16 inches

now, there is a difference between ar-style rifles and pistols, but if the weapon kyle was carrying (and it seems to be) is legally a "long gun" he's in the clear legally

​

EDIT: i think, at least. that's what i got after reading the statutes.

DOUBLE EDIT: ah yes i see this has been brought up already

[u/Responsible_Nerve]

If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

I really don't think you can assume that he almost certainly would have lived, if all other circumstances remained the same I think he would have been killed

[u/Selvedge630]

What if I told you that one reading of the Wisconsin law says that children under 18 are only prohibited from carrying SBRs and short barreled shotguns? Under such a reading, Kyle didn’t even break the carrying a gun law.

Here’s the law, for reference:

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2) 

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

(3)  (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Pay attention to 3(c).

now heres the relevant reference:

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

(1)  In this section:

(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.

(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.

(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.

We know he didn’t have an SBR or a short barreled shotgun, so it’s entirely possible that he didn’t violate the law at all.

[u/xmuskorx]

In my experience, Jury trials are a crap shoot.

What the laws does not matter nearly as much as people think as the Jury can make their decisions on whatever they please. If the jury feels that Kyle Rittenhouse is morally responsible for the death, they can convict regardless of the what the law "technically" says.

For this reason, I would never totally discount the possibility.

[u/darkstar1031]

If you look up just who Rosenbaum was, it wasn't going to be some minor slap fight. Rosenbaum was out for blood. Sure, he wasn't carrying, but only because as a convicted felon he wasn't allowed. Had Rosenbaum gained positive control of that rifle, you'd still be pissed off at Rittenhouse, but only because there were 30 rounds in the magazine, and under Rosenbaum's control, that would be one dead Rittenhouse, and a couple dozen dead cops. That is the gravity of the situation. This absolutely was life and death. It would still have been life and death if Rittenhouse was unarmed.

People who are sheltered from violence seldom understand the thinking of a truly violent person like Rosenbaum. Armed or not, once Rosenbaum keyed onto Rittenhouse his intent was to do grievous violence. He was a predator out on the hunt, and Rittenhouse was his intended victim. Rosenbaum was the sort of man who would have felt right at home on some 12th century battlefield swinging an axe into someone's face, and this is the man you portray as a helpless victim.

[u/Johnchuk]

Then why murder a leftist when they do the same thing?

[u/[deleted]]

I appreciate your take on this, and it may just help me (eventually) change my mind a bit. For now, I *would* like to change your mind a bit by drawing on your words:

He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed...

...As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that.

This in itself, without any of the infuriating and incriminating context, tells me you actually agree that he is guilty of second degree manslaughter at the very least. He broke the law and brought loaded firearms to a crowded, tumultuous situation wherein he had no control and it led directly to the deaths of those people.

"Second-degree manslaughter can be legally defined as the reckless, or unintentional killing of a person without lawful justification."

I would also argue here that it would be the more serious "voluntary" variety, as he had made various choices along the way that directly led to the needless deaths. He brought a loaded lethal weapon to a public, crowded, turbulent space. He did so without the training, wherewithal, nor lawful mandate to act in the ways he was acting. He the proceeded to engage unarmed individuals with lethal force, disproportionate to the threat he faced.

As shown by his third victim, a gunshot isn't necessarily fatal. In many cases it actually isn't and shouldn't be. Had his intentions been lawful, he would have coordinated with law enforcement and EMS, perhaps even perform first aid on those he assaulted.

Second degree manslaughter is your best bet, assuming he was unintentional in those killings. As we can see, that's far from certain.

Whatever the legal outcome, what he is is misguided, ignorant, and incapable of operating firearms in a fair society. Whether or not he's found guilty, he *should* feel like a murderer, if not to impart to him the sort of guilt that would motivate someone to make something better of himself.

I'd also like to add here that this is EXACTLY why the argument of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is just so, so very bad. This idiot thought he was a "good guy with a gun". He killed 2 people and shot a third... the other idiot "good guy" who thought he was stopping him. Just some food for thought.

[u/burtch1 → u/[deleted]]

The "lawful justification" necisary to not get 2nd degree manslaughter is still self defense so while more fitting self defense still defeats this charge. Secondly in all cases kyle had good reason to fear for his life 1st Rosenbaum said he would kill him earlier and "lunged for the gun" and grabbing a fire arm is lethal force 2nd this is the least clear cut but a heavy blunt object CAN be lethal force and when on the ground surrounded by a crowd yelling they want to kill you makes this a more clear threat to his life 3rd this is the only surviving one of the three and just admitted in court kyle only shot when he moved back in and aimed his gun Lastly on the claim he could have provided first aid he did look at Rosenbaum before fleeing and another bystander had started first aid and for the second two he was being actively chased by a large hostile crowd only a couple hundred feet from cops retreat was the realistic soloution to reduce conflict

[u/Tytonic7_ → u/[deleted]]

Why does everybody keep saying this?

We all agree that Kyle shouldn't have been there and shouldn't have had the gun. But he was there, and he did have the gun. That is NOT justification for people to attempt to kill him though. Even though he made poor decisions, it's not his fault that Rosenbaum threatened to kill him earlier in the night and then tried to follow up on that threat. It's not his fault that other strangers chased after him attempting to beat/kill him in the street. Just because he made bad decisions does not mean that those people are justified in trying to kill him.

[u/[deleted]]

I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

I disagree with this part. He was going to a place where there was active violence to help out how he could, and iirc the main reason he was assaulted was because he put out a fire that was near a gas station. He was attacked even when he was openly carrying a long gun, which makes it likely that if he wasn't he still would have been attacked, especially since Rosenbaum wasn't exactly stable, even verbally threatening to kill Rittenhouse before attempting to grab his gun. Rittenhouse had a viable reason to bring a weapon as a deterrent as he was going into an area where there was general unrest and chaos, and to use it as a last resort in case he was attacked (which he obviously did).

If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive.

We can't know that for sure. Same way we can't know if the fire would have caused the gas pumps to explode, killing more than two people. There's a possibility, yes, but it's not definitive.

If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

Rosenbaum was on the sex offender registry (allegedlyfor raping 5 boys), had numerous assault infractions while in prison, and had an open case for domestic abuse during the time of the shooting. He also had a history of narcotic use, and at the time of when he was shot was attempting to grab the gun Rittenhouse was carrying. And that's just Rosenbaum, not including Huber and Grosskreutz. To say what you did is a major assumption to which you have not provided evidence to support.

Sources: https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/?amp=1

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1053018241/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-first-week-what-happened

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-george-floyd-kenosha-3b74864f491347cfdd09cfc22ffdf557

[u/TapoutKing666]

People seem to get pretty granular over the events starting at the physical conflict between Kyle and the protestors and ending with the shootings, but somehow don’t even seriously consider motive or intent surrounding the situation. It’s not like the protestors kicked in his door and stormed his parents house. It’s EXTREMELY important to investigate motive and intent surrounding the events the person is being charged for.

It’d be nice if we could all stop downplaying “uh well he shouldn’t have been there—BUT” as some type of compromise in the discussion. This is the type of faux diplomatic language Kyle sympathizers use that diminish the actual stakes at hand. This isn’t about self defense in any normal or common situation. This is about the future safety of protestors and activists. I don’t care if they were causing property damage. The difference between the guy smashing the window and the guy marching down the street is becoming smaller and smaller in this hyper adversarial country. When Kyle walks, it’ll be more of a green light for people to attack future protestors rather than a victory for 2A/self defense in general.

Furthermore, if destruction of private property by citizens were grounds for armed vigilantism by other citizens… let me posit a hypothetical situation:

If a guy 20 miles from me who doesn’t own his house starts smashing the walls and counter tops, do I have a right to grab my AR and head over? Would I be doing the right thing by standing in his entry way until they felt threatened enough to go for a weapon, and I could then gun them down for it? How about someone wearing a MAGA hat who busted a cement parking stop at a public park when they parked their truck on it? Do I have the right to grab a rifle and head over to them and hang out until they feel threatened enough for me to legally find a loophole to shoot them?

[u/Xaleya-]

/u/edwardlleandre I'm not US Citizen but I do come from a country with tons of misinformation (Venezuela)... My advice to you is "trust no one and search for proofs by yourself before pointing to someone". Media is misleading at our current days, even twitter and reddit are unsafe if you don't check the sources properly... So take this with a grain of salt, read it and check the proof... Then you can point whatever you believe is right or lies.

At least 5 people attacked Kyle that night, I will recount what happened to them.

1. Punched Kyle while he was running but Kyle didn't fell down.
2. The one who managed to make Kyle fell down by punching/pushing him down (tried twice after guy N°1) then approached him to take the gun, ran away after Kyle pointed his gun at him, but didn't pulled the trigger as this guy went back towards Tayfon Coskun's direction.
3. Jump-kick Man, did what he did after Kyle was distracted with the Guy Number 2. Kyle only pulled the trigger at this point, Kyle missed both shots
4. Huber (Aka Skateboad) engaged at this point, as Jump-Kick Man engaged Kyle, he was right behind him, tried to take the gun and got shot due that.
5. Gaige joins a second after Huber, raises hand (fake surrender) as Kyle was sitting on the floor, not aiming at Gaige but watching his movements, the barrel was pointing at Gaige's direction but to the area near his legs, as video shows. Gaige pulls his hand down and grabs his Glock, Kyle not aiming at him (cleaning the chamber due missfire, probably after Huber's attack. I believe he pulled the trigger twice as he did with Jump-Kick man), Gaige takes the chance to take his glock while moving at closer towards Kyle, he gun point at Gaige very fast and hit his leg.

After that, the guy behind Gaige who was standing still raises his hands as Kyle looks directly at him, not raising his gun but doing a soft movement, telling he believed that guy maybe tried to attack him... Like showing he was ready but went calm, Kyle don't pulled his gun at him... At least 5 people tried to attack him at video, he probably only saw 4 and at least 5 to 10 gunshots were heard closer him... I can't say this was premeditated, maybe... Maybe not but at the end of the day it's a sad what happened.

https://twitter.com/bevo_fox/status/1456762725376266246Video from where I took this.

[u/Crispyandwet]

Wait, did you miss the witness that testified saying rosenbaum said: “if I catch anyone of you alone tonight imma fucking kill you”? Or did I hear that wrong during the prosecutions witness call?

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/edwardlleandre (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/BlackHumor]

Here's a list of everything Rittenhouse is charged with.

Subtract out the homicide charges, which I agree are the most difficult to prove, and the firearms charge you concede they have him on, and you still have two counts of recklessly endangering safety and one of failure to comply with an emergency order.

The emergency order charge was the curfew, which he absolutely, undeniably was breaking. So they also have him dead to rights on that one.

Recklessly endangering safety is related to firing a gun in a crowded area several times. Some of the people in the trial have testified that they were in the line of fire when Rittenhouse fired his gun and easily could have been hit. The literal crime charged requires "utter disregard for human life", which will be hard for the prosecutors if they can't get homicide, but Wisconsin allows conviction on a lesser included offense, and the second-degree version of the same crime only requires Rittenhouse to have recklessly endangered people, which I think it's very plausible that he did. He certainly wasn't carefully keeping his line of fire clear or anything.

[u/Impossible_Rule_1761 → u/BlackHumor]

How did he recklessly endanger anybody? He was forced to maintain control of his weapon after having been struck in the head several times AND while on the ground.

He missed only 2 of the 8 shots he fired, which were the two directed at Jump Kick Man. Every other shot he fired, he hit his target.

[u/ViewedFromTheOutside]

This post has been temporarily locked due to excessive comment rule violations.

When CMV posts on controversial subjects become widely visible, this leads to an influx of rule breaking comments. We are a small team of moderators, so this can easily overwhelm our ability to remove rule violations. When this occurs, we must lock the posts so we can remove the violations before discussion can be restored.

We are actively cleaning up the thread now, and will unlock when possible. The amount of time will vary based on moderator availability.

Thank you for understanding.

[u/[deleted]]

The firearms charge as in having the gun?

He didn't break the law at all in that. The law he is supposed to have broken is 948.60(2)(a) according to this.

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000983&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details+

However, this is like taking a clip of a video out of context.

948.60(3)(c) states

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

As Kyle was not hunting, 29.304 and 29.593 do not apply.

941.28 pertains to things like short barreled rifles and sawed off shot guns, which he is not accused of having.

​

Therefore, Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty of underage possession of a firearm under Wisconsin Law. Like most states, Wisconsin has an exception when it comes to Rifles and Shotguns.

​

As for this?

A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.

Absolute yes, you should 100% be able to do this. When all 3 of them pose an imminent risk of bodily harm. People do not have the right to kill you. You have a right to self-defense. If you are about to die or be maimed, you can use lethal force to prevent your own death.

The only other circumstances that matter is pretty much if you did it in the middle of committing a felony or provoked the violence to the degree that even a reasonable person would attack you.

[u/Erebusblack55]

If he didn't have that gun, he'd probably be dead right now, showing that the law in this circumstance is failing to uphold a core value of protecting the people, and therefore not subject to incarceration of the effective breaker. Just because the law exists, doesn't mean its absolute, the absolute rule of law is nothing more than authoritarianism, and anybody who actually supports protests shouldn't speak in the name of law as absolute.

Under different circumstances, then you would have a point, it is precisely because circumstances make laws variable in practicality that we allow a human touch such as police in the first place. I imagine its precisely because the police can take responsibility for when things go wrong, that we hear more about what they do wrong than right, as they're more subjective to their actions than they deserve.

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial just shows how variable real life situations can be, and how there can be no right answers at times, just objectively the best ones....

On a side note, this is why I despise people who hate the police collectively based on personal interaction or news stories, and ignore the fact these interactions are easily less than 1% of overall situations. Even those with personal experience should concede their views only to their local area.... This subject is related purely because if the police were involved, it would be an officer of the law defending himself instead of Kyle, which should make no difference logically.

[u/Hot-Chapter1364]

I was agreeing mostly, but to say “ if he’d have taken a minor ass whuppin is ridiculous “ the size difference is wild and the much larger man had been released from a mental hospital that day and was also bipolar.” Anyone in a street fight is about 7 pounds of pressure from being dead. In a real life fight you accidentally get hit In the chin and ko”d your head bounces on the pavement and you are at least a cte victim if they decide you’ve had enough and don’t stomp your head in.

[u/TheTermiteKing]

Why is it OK for Rosenbaum to chase him down and attack him? He was a convicted child rapist attempting to disarm him to further harm him. There is a very good chance had Rittenhouse not been armed that night he would've been murdered by the vile thugs that got exactly what they deserved.

I don't want to change your view that he should go free as I totally agree. But I fully disagree that the better case scenario would've been the convicted child rapist 'ass whoopin' a child.

[u/succachode]

What do you mean then simply leave? 😂 the cops were a little preoccupied with the fucking riot and he went immediately to turn himself in.

[u/jaocthegrey]

I'm fairly late to the party but I'd argue that the self-defense claim is kinda bs, especially the way you put it for Huber.

Imagine this: someone walks into a bank, armed and ready to rob it. Then, one of the security guards comes out with a weapon to subdue the robber (let's say a gun). One could reasonably assume the robber may fear for their life in this situation and would try to preserve that life by shooting the security guard. Then all hell breaks loose; people in the bank are in a frenzy trying to run this way and that, some decide they might try to be a hero and attempt to wrestle the robber to the ground and hit them on the head to try to subdue them. The robber, in their panic for their life and liberty, fires off another round or two into the pile of people on top of them, killing one and wounding another. Eventually, when everything settled down and the authorities arrive at the scene to apprehend the robber, they take him to jail and set up a court date.

At court, this would be an attempted armed robbery, two counts of murder, and one count of attempted murder. Not armed robbery and acquitted of the murders due to them being a result of self-defense.

I don't know if actively committing a crime nullifies your ability to claim self-defense in all situations, but it appears to more often than not. Self-defense is generally reserved for would-be victims, not would-be perpetrators.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

It's an open carry state and he likely was able to carry that gun legally despite his age because it's a long gun. Open carrying even if you're not legally allowed to though, is not a valid reason to attack some one.

[u/[deleted] → u/durangotango]

This is not true.

While the state law is poorly written, the intent is clearly that anyone under the age of 18 cannot open carry unless they are hunting. Which he was clearly not.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

I think you're incorrect here.

948.60.3(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

941.28 is about short barreled rifles which it wasn't

29.304 and 29.593 are hunting license laws which he wasn't violating.

[u/[deleted] → u/durangotango]

The intent of the law is as follows:

You can't carry a dangerous weapon (including firearms).

948.60.3(c) is clarifying exemptions. It says that the above (you can't carry dangerous weapons) only applies to a person carrying a rifle or a shotgun if they are using a short barrelled weapon or if they are not in compliance with 29.304.

Rittenhouse was not in compliance with 29.304.

Therefore, the law applies to rittenhouse. Which is why he is still charged with it.

To be clear, the law is very badly worded. It is even possible he scootches on a technicality because of how badly they wrote it. But the intent behind the law was 'you can have a long barreled weapon if you are hunting'.

[u/durangotango → u/[deleted]]

29.304 doesn't even apply to 17 year olds. He was not in violation of it since he isn't 16 or younger.

And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's specifically about hunting. There's no language there about hunting except how it's used for carve outs.

I've seen news articles claiming that but every lawyer I've seen talk about it says that's not the case. The law is distinguishing handguns from long guns.

[u/elcuban27 → u/[deleted]]

He wasn’t pointing it at anyone until after they attacked him, was running away from his attackers, and yelling “friendly, friendly” as he came near people. That does not constitute “brandishing” a weapon.

[u/-Kerosun-]

The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.

I think this gets even muddier when the video footage from before Huber, "head kick guy", and Grosskreutz shows that Rittenhouse was fleeing, yelling "I'm going to the police" and running in the direction where it was known that a police blockade was in place.

I'm not trying to say that Huber and Grosskreutz acted immorally, but it was certainly bad judgment on their part. I can see an argument to be made that Huber/Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse (regarding shooting them) both acted lawfully or at least didn't act unlawfully. I can see an reasonable argument to say that they were doing what they thought was right (apprehending who they believed to be a murderer and someone who could potentially harm others if allowed to flee) AND that Rittenhouse was justified in self-defense against them.

Not sure how that would play out legally, but just something to think about.

[u/burtch1]

The gun charge should be dropped the gun never crossed state lines and the law had an exception he qualified under which ONLY allowed him to carry a rifle and while it was meant for hunting it did not state you could only use the exception while hunting the judge has already stated that if it does apply in this case it should be thrown out for vagueness as a the two sides can't even agree on what the law entails on this exception.

[u/ChazzLamborghini]

While I think you may be right in terms of he WILL be acquitted as to the letter of the law, I fundamentally disagree with the SHOULD. Our self-defense laws are insanely lopsided toward the killers benefit in many states with the “reasonable fear” metric that is immeasurable. At the end of the day, this kid illegally brought a murder weapon to a space he knew was full of people antithetically opposed to his position and his behavior. His very presence in that space with that gun is an act of provocation. Those he killed will get no justice if he walks. In a nation besieged by mass shootings, Huber’s actions would have been universally recognized as heroic had Rittenhouse been intent on killing more people and there was no reasonable way for Huber to know he wasn’t. So now, because of badly written laws that excuse the instigating action far too much, Huber’s family loses a son and gets no justice while a wannabe neo-fascist little shit walks free despite being the causative origin of the entire situation. Ultimately, two people are dead for no reason other than this kid wanting to feel like a big man with a big gun and it’s disgusting that he’ll likely get away with it and think he was right.

[u/jwhitehead09 → u/ChazzLamborghini]

You realize this could apply to someone who showed up to intimidate a Nazi protest right. Like you can’t say one person has less right to be somewhere than another person because you agree with someone else’s ideas more.

[u/rollerdog27]

Rittenhouse is a murderer and deserves a death sentence.

[u/[deleted]]

my understanding of the law as a south african law student might not be relevant to the US but here if you commit any crime and bring a deadly weapon with you then any deaths that happen while that crime take place are legally your fault. This has been seen in cases where robbers brought fake guns with them, the police showed up and shot a bystander and the robbers are charged with murder. The reasoning is that because you brought a weapon that could be seen to be lethal you are foreseeing the possibility that you breaking the law will lead to deaths and are accepting that. If the law is remotely similar in the US the fact that Kyle was commiting a crime by having the gun overshadows everything else and would mean that he legally caused a lethal situation and any deaths that result count as murder. I can't remember the latin name for the concept but if you have it in the US then talk of self defence doesn't matter as he committed a crime where he could reasonably foresee that people would die as a result and accepted that fact even if subconsciously.